Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 9

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April at 10am. If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access as early as possible.

Send an email to

[email protected]

The subject heading of the email request should read

“MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – Case number 2202172/2020 - Ms A Bailey – 25th April 2022.

Then ask for the pin for the online access.

You will be contacted with instructions on how to observe the hearing.

When joining the live tribunal please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Thread 1 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

Thread 5 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4548160-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-5

Thread 6 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4550451-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-6

Thread 7 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4551757-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-7

Thread 8 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552521-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-8

Allison Bailey - claimant

Witnesses for the claimant:

Nic Williams - Fair Play for Women
A Woman's Place
FiLiA
Kate Harris - LGB Alliance

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC
Kirrin Medcalfe - head of trans inclusion Stonewall
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC and in charge of writing report on AB/complaints
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC

Current Witness - Charlie Tennant - Clerk at GCC

To come

Luke Harvey - Clerk at GCC
Louise Hooper - Clerk at GCC
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge

Gosh, he really is muddled. And in a strange way too. What person cant understand that when women are vulnerable or naked they don't want randoms from the sex class who commit all the sex crime, in there with them?

He seems to think there's some other esoteric reason for excluding men.

I know men as a class often don't really get what it's like for women, but he's in a different league.

As always, these threads have been great re catching up with what’s been happening. Have to say, my heart rate was increasing reading the snippets from the latest witness - am really hoping I’ll be able to view some of the proceedings next week.

A small request, though. There have been, across these threads, posts along the lines of “oh, great question” or “X is really asking great questions” or “BC really got to the point there”. For those of us that can’t follow live, it would be really helpful if these types of specific questions/comments could be stated in the post. It’s been pretty easy to get the gist of what’s going on, but it would be much appreciated if the more standout comments/questions could be shown. TBF, normally get the gist of them after a page or two, but more context would be great.

From everything I’ve read so far, GCC really aren’t coming across very well. Are we due any more witnesses from SW?

I’ve obviously not witnessed testimony myself, reading about it on here has been hard enough. Poor Allison - seeing all of this played out must have been awful, let alone seeing it in black and white (witness statements) and via the testimony during this case.

If I do manage to log in to proceedings next week, I’m half hoping that I fail on cutting of my microphone - only because I have a very vocal pheasant who visits my garden most days.

A small request, though. There have been, across these threads, posts along the lines of “oh, great question” or “X is really asking great questions” or “BC really got to the point there”. For those of us that can’t follow live, it would be really helpful if these types of specific questions/comments could be stated in the post. It’s been pretty easy to get the gist of what’s going on, but it would be much appreciated if the more standout comments/questions could be shown. TBF, normally get the gist of them after a page or two, but more context would be great.

I’d really appreciate this too.

Who decides the order in a which witnesses appear? Barring scheduling conflicts etc.

I’m wondering if it’s just coincidence that the GCC barristers have been in more or less escalating order of gender zealotry. It’s quite helpful for slowly painting a picture.

I missed most of this afternoon with the clerks. Do we know if they looked at how many high level cases of the type Alison did came into chambers in the period we're taking about.

So murder/man slaughter/serious violent crime etc.

Numbers out of air time.

Say the chambers got 30 instructions for serious cases and there were 10 barristers on the crime team of suitable call who took that sort of work but our barrister only got 1 instruction and it cracked early so no trial in the end.

I would expect to be able to show, as a clerk, reasoning as to why that wouldn't be an even split. E.g. these 10 cases all came in to x barrister by name and they were free. Or, look, we offered this barrister each time for work but the solicitor went another way.

If there were other reasons AB didn't have as much work it should be demonstrable. You can't make a solicitor instruct someone.

I would love to see an analysis of all suitable cases received into chambers in a 12 month period by who did the work and outcome for income.

I would have thought it would be fairly straightforward for the GCC clears to produce this but as it hasn’t been raised yet, perhaps not. Or perhaps, if they did, it wouldn’t go in their favour.

GCC clears is clerks. Obviously!

stupid, dodging autocorrect.

ha! Dodging should have been sodding!

It does seem to me likely that there has been coaching at Garden Court to try and keep people on the same page, although some clearly ducked out.I am thinking of the repeated assertions of no gossip and all barristers treated the same and thought of the same in the clerks room. And that Allisons earnings in 2018 are repeatedly stated as a result of luck. So insulting! They may have also perhaps altered their own testimony to refute or amplify previous witness appearances. So what is the point of them being told not to discuss the case with others?
That Resisting Forstater article ! DR does seem to exist in a world of his own if he thinks robing rooms are a gotcha. Women dont need to be told that in Civil Society women were invisible.Love how polite Maya was to him.
It is horrid to think of someone spying on their room mate, but he genuinely finds her views repugnant from the sound of it. If I had thought a colleagues’ right wing views had moved from UKIP towards National Action or whatever, I guess I might have done the same. Ridiculous as it is, women asking for separate facilities to remain, and lesbians only desiring other women were and are seen as that extreme.
I would second the thanks for all this commentary, and also for a little more context to what was a good question etc. I have no faith that I could successsfully access the hearing without my 5 support animals making an appearance, or the trans ally currently sharing my home catching me doing my transphobia by watching.

A small request, though. There have been, across these threads, posts along the lines of “oh, great question” or “X is really asking great questions” or “BC really got to the point there”. For those of us that can’t follow live, it would be really helpful if these types of specific questions/comments could be stated in the post. It’s been pretty easy to get the gist of what’s going on, but it would be much appreciated if the more standout comments/questions could be shown. TBF, normally get the gist of them after a page or two, but more context would be great.

I’d really appreciate this too.

I'd also really really appreciate this. If I have a moment I try and look through the transcripts on twitter to find the comment you're all talking about but I never do.

It's a good question @MsMarvellous - I don't know if BC can compel them to produce the info?

I don't think there actually need to have been a direct instruction - a facial expression can do a lot of work on its own. A raised eyebrow from brewer or Harrison might have been all that was needed.

Thanks for links to the blog. DR simply doesn't believe that women want single sex spaces for ourselves does he? He thinks it's purely to be unkind to transwomen. Bizarre. I loved Maya describing Murray and lord as unexceptional men

I'm not sure whether or not the tribunal will feel the same but I have this "closed shop" vibe. GCC are saying the right things about offering everyone, blah blah blah, but we all know real life means that a closure of tanks can leave someone ostracised without it looking to a casual observer like they are.

Unless Allison is actually a very different person to the one I have been following online for the last few years, which I doubt, the frustrations that came out about her clerking can't have stemmed from nowhere.

Sure, some barristers can be over sensitive, same as anyone. But she just doesn't strike me as that sort of person, even less so based on what you all wrote about her evidence, which I unfortunately couldn't watch.

It is horrid to think of someone spying on their room mate, but he genuinely finds her views repugnant from the sound of it.

Because he's a flat-out bigot. He doesn't understand her views, but he knows that it's dirty and wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

They're saying some of the right things imo, but the last 2 witnesses yesterday are clearly absolutely deep in GI and vehemently reasserted their view that anyone with ABs concerns and beliefs could be 'harming' others. And that any concern re vulnerable women is some sort of cover for anti trans thoughts and feelings.

Why do these people never stop and think, 'what avenues am I leaving open as acceptable for women to discuss and ensure their safety?'

They leave no way at all, and they're fine with it. That shone through yesterday.

A small request, though. There have been, across these threads, posts along the lines of “oh, great question” or “X is really asking great questions” or “BC really got to the point there”. For those of us that can’t follow live, it would be really helpful if these types of specific questions/comments could be stated in the post. It’s been pretty easy to get the gist of what’s going on, but it would be much appreciated if the more standout comments/questions could be shown. TBF, normally get the gist of them after a page or two, but more context would be great.
I’d really appreciate this too.

I will try, but it is so fast moving and I am so slow typing. Some posts are just instinctive reaction. I appreciate if you are not watching, those posts are meaningless.

I will try to put the context as best as I can.

@Furries

You'd get a swift ticking off if you left your microphone on.
And i mean swift!
One of the panel has been asked to mute, cos we can hear her typing.
Even EJG had to mute cos we could hear her cat miaowing - which was a brilliant moment.

We now all want to see the cat, of course.

I think the proposition JK wanted us to accept was that AB could have been an ‘out’ GC person at GCC and nobody would have turned a hair, let alone subjected her to a hostile environment.

But I don’t think that’s true. There is no possibility in my mind, with comments like ‘dirty transphobic laundry’, Renton’s awe-inspiring misogyny on display yesterday, Stephen Lue’s undercover activist persona, that any straightforward declaration of belief on AB’s part or the part of any other female barrister would have resulted in roughly the same outcome.

That’s a hostile environment.

I will try, but it is so fast moving and I am so slow typing. Some posts are just instinctive reaction. I appreciate if you are not watching, those posts are meaningless.
I will try to put the context as best as I can.

Thanks Ickky.

I will also try not to make pointless posts like "ooh good question!' any more.

If I was watching I’m sure I’d do it too!

That is a very revealing exchange in the comments.

It is clear that he thinks GC beliefs are primarily to harm trans people and he cannot compute that is about women's safety and dignity.

I don't think men actually comprehend how scary they are to women or the fear that women have everyday. By fear, I don't mean running screaming from a situation, but the momentary thoughts we have as we go about our lives in public places, the working out safe routes, the never going out alone after dark etc. These for me are - Is this man going to harm me in some way, is he going to sexually harass me, say something to embarrass me etc

This is not a hysterical over reaction by me. This is a conditioned response to years and years of daily harassment, often multiply times a day. Obviously as you get older, it does drop off (thank god), but you still have to do the maths, just in case. Obviously I don't think every man is a predator, but I don't know which ones are, so have to act accordingly.

When I spoke to my partner about just how frequent these events are, he didn't believe me. When we were out one day, he was dawdling behind and saw a man verbally sexually harass me, I had to intervene, to stop him assaulting the man. The man apologised to my partner, not me, I clearly didn't matter. 😡😡😡

No!

Please keep making those posts! (Just tell us what the question was, too).

That exchange between the Renton and Maya is very revealing. She had to correct him on a number of blatant misstatements which anyone with even a tenuous understanding of GC positions would be aware of. For example, he claimed in his analysis of her tribunal appeal that she "regarded people's birth gender is immutable".

He seems like a really ineffective researcher who has the level of understanding you might get from reading a few KM blogs and a couple of reddit comments and thinks he knows what he's talking about. His witness statement was full of other obvious misunderstanding or misstatements of the GC position.

Today he was presenting the Independent article on TW prisoners like it was some kind of gotcha but failed to mention the Independent was forced to issue multiple corrections in favour of FPFW's analysis. You'd expect an academic to put some caveats when presenting an article that's been subjected to so many corrections as factual but he comes across more like a preacher.

YY. The blog where he argues with Maya is, as you say, very revealing.

Next week (if I have time) I’ll record Michelle Brewer’s evidence more clearly for everyone watching. I’m not sure if I’m allowed to give a word-for-word under the ruling?

I really wish these men would be honest and say that they don't feel we have a right to not believe in these male people's identity and that their feelings matter more than ours.

I man I will add in the context @DifficultBloodyWoman - I hadn't really thought about the threads being read as catch up later (quite stupidly as I've also been doing it )